It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The first of Gensis may not even be dealing with the actually beginning of the Earth but more precisely the time after a Catachesmic event. This event could have saparted our orbiting moon from the Earth. It could have been a time when Atlantis blew the hell out of the Earth as we are about to approach again.
ESV
"Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
1. living mollusk shells carbon dated at 2300 years old
2. Freshly killed seal carbon dated at 1300 years old.
3. living snails carbon dated 27,000 years old.
Originally posted by Nygdan
And rather than being inaccurate, carbon dating can be very accurate. We can independantly check results from carbon dating with other, completely independant methods of radio-isotopic dating. And we can also check the tree growth ring record (another accurate dating method) and compare it to results obtained from carbon dating. Man can also calibrate, fine tune, his carbon dating techniques with that tree ring record.
Originally posted by Tassadar
These trees only lived a few hundred or thousand years, maybe...
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
Radiometric dating is only accurate if the presumed ratios of certain isotopes are correct.
This link has a good explanation of the problems with radiometric datig: bric.users.ftech.net...
This chart [the geologic column] cannot be found in nature, it is theoretical, pieced together from various inter-related strata from all over the world.
A case of two theories being cross referenced in order to establish a so called fact??
This dating test relies entirely on knowing exactly what the original ratio mix of C14 to C12 is or was. The clock is only accurate if the ratio is the same today as when the organism lived and remained constant during its life and after its death right up to the time of dating.
The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), and to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).
And rather than being inaccurate, carbon dating can be very accurate. We can independantly check results from carbon dating with other, completely independant methods of radio-isotopic dating.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
what about when they check to see if it works when the age is known and get results that do not reflect the object they are testing?
carbon dating does not work because the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium of radioactive carbon14 particles.
you need the atmosphere to be in equilibrium with C14 particles in order to get an accurate result.
I dont know if you know how carbon dating works, but you will notice that the assumption is made where the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same or has reached equilibrium
.. you would have to make that assumption in order to believe carbon dating to works.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
thats why carbon dating does not work.
Carbon dating has been proven to not work on things of known age.